Case Law Details
Chandra Bhan Vs Union Of India (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction: The Allahabad High Court’s recent judgment in the case of Chandra Bhan Vs Union of India provides crucial insights into the legality of manual notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The court examined whether a notice issued manually instead of through a Document Identification Number (DIN) would be considered valid, especially when the assessee has participated in the proceedings.
Context of the Case: The petitioner, Chandra Bhan, filed a writ petition challenging an order of re-assessment passed against him. The preliminary objection raised was the question of the notice’s validity under Section 148, as it was issued manually without a DIN. This was claimed to be a violation of the department’s circular.
Counsel’s Arguments
- Petitioner’s Counsel: Argued that the notice issued manually was in violation of the rules, as it lacked a DIN. They also claimed that proper opportunity was not provided to the petitioner.
- Union of India’s Counsel: Countered that the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings, and the reassessment was concluded only after considering his reply.
High Court’s Stance: The High Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition because of the existence of a statutory alternative remedy. It noted that all questions of law and fact could be examined by the appellate authority. The court stated that since no prejudice had been shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the issuance of a manual notice, the lack of a DIN would not be a valid ground to entertain the writ petition.
The Issue of Jurisdiction: The crux of the case revolved around whether the order was issued without jurisdiction due to the absence of DIN on the notices. The court rejected this argument, stating that since the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the manual notice and even submitted his objections, no harm had been caused.
Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Chandra Bhan Vs Union Of India, provided significant clarity on the issue of manual notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It ruled that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings and no prejudice is caused, the lack of a DIN would not invalidate the notice or the proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Verma, learned counsel appearing for Union of India.
This petition is directed against the order of re-assessment passed against the petitioner. A preliminary objection is taken to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner has remedy of filing statutory appeal where all questions of fact and law can be adjudicated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that proper opportunity was not given and that the notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued manually instead of it being issued by applying the document identification number (DIN). Such notice is said to be in violation of the circular issued by the department.
Learned counsel appearing for the revenue/ department states that petitioner has participated in the proceedings and only after consideration of his reply the reassessment proceedings have been concluded.
In the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition in view of the availability of statutory alternative remedy. The petitioner has otherwise participated in the proceedings. All questions of fact and law are otherwise left open for appropriate examination by the appellate authority.
The main argument is that the order is without jurisdiction since notices were not issued on DIN. This argument is noticed only to be rejected since no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner on account of issuance of manual notices. Admittedly, the petitioner has acknowledged receipt of such notice and has also submitted his objections, which have been duly adverted to. Non-issuance of notice on DIN would thus not be a ground to entertain the writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy.
Subject to the observations made above, this petition is consigned to records.
